Don Sanderson wrote:
You had me looking for an F 35-85, no such beast. I see from the web page you meant the 35-80/4-5.6. I have an F 28-80/3.5-4.5 that has done very well considering it's $25.00 US price tag. I think some of the older F lenses are highly under-rated just because they're heavy and quite ugly. The 28-80 is quite homely but a very good lens all around. The 35-80 is quite a bit more pleasing to the eye. I also have an F 35-70/3.5-4.5, very cheap but has given me almost unbelievably good results on the D.
Don
Thanks to Jens, I now know how soft that 35mm setting is, wide open, on the 35-80!
Mine is the -A version, but I'd bet it's identical to the -F version, formula-wise.
Fortunately, the 70mm setting is much sharper.
With the 70mm, I saw edges and engraving scoll lines.
All that was wiped out, literally, with the wide open 35mm setting!
I'm not at all happy with that...
That lens is now up for grabs. I'm selling it. It's practically unmarked. Lens is perfect, body shows no marks, scratches, etc., but it goes.
I'll find another similar one that's sharp...
Thanks, Jens
-----Original Message----- From: Jens Bladt [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, October 30, 2004 10:58 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Pentax-F 4-5.6/35-85mm vs. Tokina AT-X 270 AF Pro II
I have now posted test shots done with these two lenses. Taking into account that I paid app. 10% for the Pentax lens (used: 57 USD) compared to the Tokina lens (which I got like new for the whole sale price: 732 USD - annother custumer had chosen the SMC FA 2.8/28-70mm instead) - I think the Pentax lens is doing quite well. Of cource it doesn't give me the same speed and FOV.
http://gallery37564.fotopic.net/c97627.html
Comments are welcome
All the best
Jens Bladt mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://hjem.get2net.dk/bladt
